PDA

View Full Version : Readyloads?



iamjanco
19-Jun-2009, 20:44
Ok, this is a bit beyond me for the moment. But being the adventurous kind, I'm not afraid to try almost anything at least one time.

A friend of mine who's retiring from the photo store business gave me a couple of packs of Ektachrome 100VS single sheet readyloads that I'd like to shoot using my Norma. They're a couple of years out of date, but were kept in his freezer. This will be the first 4x5 film I'll be shooting since 1988, and I don't recall being able to buy Readyloads back in those days (at least not in Germany, where I was at the time).

Anyway, there's a label on each box that says it's best to shoot this film using a Kodak Readyload film holder with a black pressure plate. Now for the questions. Would any of you know where I might pick up such a beast without spending a fortune? Will such a back work in my Norma (the tension on its spring back might be likened to one of those mid-evil chastity belts some of us used to joke about as kids)? Are there any alternatives to this back that might work just as well?

If I can work out the back issue without spending a fortune, I'll develop the film using a CPE 2+ and a 2500 series drum. I did E6 back in the '80's as well, in a CPA, and though the CPE only has room for four chemicals, I'm pretty sure I can temper everything consistently in the setup I've got.

Danke for any input/hinweise.

Jan C.

Arne Croell
20-Jun-2009, 00:45
Since Readyload is no longer made, the holders don't command really high prices on ebay-you can't buy them new anymore. Alternatives are the Polaroid 545 single sheet holders, and supposedly the Fuji Quickload holder also works with single sheet Readyload (but I have never verified this).

Sevo
20-Jun-2009, 01:49
Fuji Quickloads are still being made, and that tends to drive used Readyload holder prices above Polaroid 545es, whose original purpose is past, and which are a bit more bulky and less elegant. A 545 would be perfectly ok for the purpose.

ode to veeck
20-Jun-2009, 15:18
the kodak or fuji holders with the springbacks do a better job of holding the film sheet flat than the polaroid 545

iamjanco
20-Jun-2009, 16:41
Thanks for the info, guys. I'll have a look through the auction site to see what's available.

SMG
20-Jun-2009, 19:04
can anyone give a definitive answer as to which currently available film will fit in a Polaroid 545/545i back?

I would love to be able to shoot instant film in my new 4x5 but don't want to buy a 545 if I cannot find film for it. Nor do I want to buy a Fuji film adapter as they are stinking expensive.

Thanks,
Sean

Gene McCluney
21-Jun-2009, 11:03
can anyone give a definitive answer as to which currently available film will fit in a Polaroid 545/545i back?

I would love to be able to shoot instant film in my new 4x5 but don't want to buy a 545 if I cannot find film for it. Nor do I want to buy a Fuji film adapter as they are stinking expensive.

Thanks,
Sean


There are no instant films manufactured for the 545/545i Polaroid film backs. None.

Drew Wiley
21-Jun-2009, 13:27
I found that the 545 holder holds the film plane flatter than the official Kodak or Fuji
holders, especially along the insertion side. But they seem to vary a bit. You have to
actually put a sleeve of film in, pull back the paper darkslide, and look at reflections
to see how flat the film is (I use the reflection of a pair of overhead fluorescent light bulbs, because it's so easy to detect deviance within linearity: film uneveness will
appear as waves or bends in the reflected image).

Walter Jakubowski
21-Jun-2009, 16:31
I have been using Kodak Readyloads with the Kodak single-sheet packet holder with very good results. When Kodak announced the termination of Readyload film I did some extensive research on the web relating to the compatibility of the Kodak/Fuji products.
The good news is that the Kodak single sheet packet holder (with the red release button) is compatible with the Fuji Quickload films. I have confirmed this with my
own experience as well. Never a failure. The Fuji Film Holder is supposedly NOT compatible with the Kodak Readyload films.

cheers,
Walter

Sevo
22-Jun-2009, 04:49
the kodak or fuji holders with the springbacks do a better job of holding the film sheet flat than the polaroid 545

Different tests have had each and any of them both best and worst, so it is probably safe to say that the differences between individual samples and/or the impact of handling and environmental conditions are bigger than the differences between the different brand holders.

rdenney
22-Jun-2009, 13:55
can anyone give a definitive answer as to which currently available film will fit in a Polaroid 545/545i back?

There is no instant film for the 545 holder.

But these holders are dirt cheap. KEH is selling them for under $20 in bargain condition (which in my experience is what most ebay sellers call "excellent"). And they also work with Fuji Quickloads, so having one makes using Quickloads a future possibility even if you don't plan to do so. They are cheap enough to buy just to use up a couple of boxes of Readyloads already in hand.

The only instant film in 4x5 is the Fuji 4x5 film packs, which use a Polaroid 550 or Fuji PA-45 (which is identical to the Polaroid). These are pack films and their holders will not accommodate single-sheet films including Readyloads and Quickloads.

Rick "keeping his 545 for use with Quickloads" Denney

rvhalejr
22-Jun-2009, 14:16
I found that the 545 holder holds the film plane flatter than the official Kodak or Fuji
holders, especially along the insertion side. But they seem to vary a bit. You have to
actually put a sleeve of film in, pull back the paper darkslide, and look at reflections
to see how flat the film is (I use the reflection of a pair of overhead fluorescent light bulbs, because it's so easy to detect deviance within linearity: film uneveness will
appear as waves or bends in the reflected image).

Interesting. I will not be able to test this for some time, but would anyone happen to know how close to mirror like reflectance this technique approaches ?

R.

.,.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44093&page=13

Nathan Potter
24-Jun-2009, 10:05
rvhalejr, you've talked about this reflection technique previously and I think it is OK as a rough guide. It's just difficult to acquire real quantitative run out data from the observation.

Were one to try to quantify I think you need to do a calibrated bend test and photograph the image from a known angle of reflectance. For that I would use measured thickness shim stock under the film, say like 6 mil in the center and 3 mil half way out and 0 mil at the edge. Then the film is deformed an approximately known amount. Photograph at a known angle then measure the displacement on the film. Repeat for various shim thicknesses then generate a table of bow on test film vs displacement on the recording film. All a hell of a job but instructive nevertheless.

Counting fringe displacement using a projection interferometer is a lot easier but my guess is there will be a hell of a lot of half wave fringes (100 per mil).

And I forgot to mention that the film should be jigged up on an optical flat standard surface.

Nate Potter, Boston MA.

rvhalejr
1-Jul-2009, 14:27
.,. I think you need to do a calibrated bend test and photograph the image from a known angle of reflectance. For that I would use measured thickness shim stock under the film, say like 6 mil in the center and 3 mil half way out and 0 mil at the edge. Then the film is deformed an approximately known amount. Photograph at a known angle then measure the displacement on the film. Repeat for various shim thicknesses then generate a table of bow on test film vs displacement on the recording film. All a hell of a job but instructive nevertheless.


Thanks (once again) for the great technical description. I've also got to tip my hat to the poster suggesting that the quickload/readyloads can be very flat before being placed in a holder (if I remember correctly, the last time I destroyed one). Something to look into after organizing all the boxes. Cheers !!!

R.